About changing the preventive measure for the detention of a suspect
September 16, 2025 № 5143-24-00-1 / 47
The Republic of Kazakhstan, having established itself as a democratic, secular, legal and social state, its highest values are man, human life, rights and freedoms (paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Constitution).
At the same time, everyone has the right to protect their rights and freedoms by all means that do not contradict the law and receive qualified legal assistance (paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 13 of the Constitution).
The materials of the criminal case No. 255143031000056 against the E. K. A. (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) on the signs of the composition of the criminal offense provided for by Part 1 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the Proceedings of the senior investigator of the TB Police Department of the Maktaaralsky District of the Turkestan Region Police Department D. K. Zhaksylyk (hereinafter referred to as the investigator) were considered and sent to the court.
During the investigation, E. K. A was recognized as a suspect for intentional acts aimed at inciting religious discord, insulting the National Honor and dignity of citizens or religious feelings, and on March 2, 2025, he was detained in accordance with Article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, arrested in a temporary detention center of the Police Department of Maktaaralsky district, and then arrested in a pre-trial detention center, sanctioned by the investigative court.
The materials of the criminal case are sent to the court under Part 1 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a criminal case No. 5143-25-00-1/47 is being considered against the defendant E. K. AK (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) under my protection.
In accordance with the question presented in the expert opinion No. 61 of April 21, 2025, conducted by the preliminary investigation body on the basis of the resolution of March 14, 2025, the materials submitted for the study indicate that there are ideas that preach religious enmity and discord between one religious group (supporters of Salafism) and another group (Jews and Christians, Shiites, rafidites, Sufis of Ahlu buidda).
Our request to recognize the expert's Opinion No. 61 as an inadmissible fact as evidence in a criminal case No. 5143-25-00-1/47 - illegal and invalid as evidence-has found its place in the court.
Factual data inadmissible as evidence in accordance with Article 112 of the CPC, if they are obtained in violation of the requirements of this code, contribute or may contribute to the reliability of factual data obtained during a pre-trial investigation or trial of a case by depriving the participants of their rights guaranteed by law or oppressing their rights, or by violating other provisions of the criminal process, including: in violation of the Criminal Procedure Law, factual data obtained from an unknown source or from a source that cannot be established at a court session shall be recognized as inadmissible data as evidence and may not be referred to the basis of prosecution, as well as used in proving any circumstances specified in Article 113 of this code.
In accordance with articles 123, 125 125 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, factual data can be used as evidence only after registration in the Protocols of procedural actions.
In addition to drawing up protocols for fixing evidence, sound, video recording, film, Photo recording, embossing, printed symbols, plans, schemes, and other methods of capturing information can be used. A note is made in the protocol of the investigative action or in the protocol of the court session, respectively, with the indication of the technical characteristics of the scientific and technical means used on the application of the specified methods of fixing evidence by a participant in the investigative action or trial.
Phonograms, video recordings, films, photographs, reliefs, printed symbols, plans, schemes, other representations of the course and results of investigative or judicial action are attached to the protocol. Each appendix must contain an explanatory note indicating the name, place, date of the investigative or judicial action against it. This record is certified by the prosecutor, interrogator or investigator during the pre-trial investigation of the case and, if necessary, by witnesses, and in court by the presiding judge and Secretary of the court session with their signatures.
The evidence collected in the case is subject to comprehensive and objective investigation. The study involves analyzing the evidence obtained, comparing it with other evidence, collecting additional evidence to verify them, checking the sources of obtaining evidence.
Each evidence must be evaluated in terms of its relevance, admissibility, certainty, and all collected evidence in its totality is sufficient to resolve a criminal case.
The judge, prosecutor, investigator, inquiry officer evaluates evidence according to their own internal conviction, based on a comprehensive, complete and objective review of evidence with a set, guided by law and conscience in accordance with Article 25 of this code.
However, in cases where the expert's opinion is not sufficiently justified in accordance with Article 287 of the CPC of this examination, or its components are in doubt, or the procedural norms on the appointment and conduct of the examination are seriously violated, a repeated examination is appointed to study the same objects and resolve the same issues.
On July 25, 2025, during the court session in this criminal case, the court decided to appoint a repeated religious examination in the criminal case.
In the materials of the criminal case, the only evidence against the defendant under my protection is the expert opinion No. 61. During the court session, it was noted that the results of this procedure are not accepted by the court as unjustified and accurate evidence in the criminal case.
Article 342 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Resolution of the issue of a preventive measure
1.during the main trial, the court has the right to choose, change, cancel or extend the preventive measure against the defendant.
2.the term of detention of a defendant in custody as a preventive measure should not exceed six months from the date of receipt of the case in court and before the sentencing.
3.in cases of serious crimes, after the expiration of the period specified in part two of this article, the court has the right to extend the period of detention by its resolution to twelve months.
3-1.in cases of particularly serious crimes, after the expiration of the period specified in part two of this article, the court has the right to extend the period of detention by its resolution to eighteen months. In exceptional cases, the specified period may be extended by a motivated court decision, but not more than one month in each case.
4.after the expiration of the terms of detention with security specified in parts two and three of this article, the court shall transfer the measure of restraint to the defendant to house arrest or other measure of restraint.
Based on the above and guided by Article 342 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, I ask the court:
* Release the suspect E. K. from the pre-trial detention center and apply a preventive measure against him that is not related to the arrest.
However, the Maktaaral District Court of Turkestan region, consisting of: presiding Judge A. Shindaliyev, Secretary of the court session U. P7, M. Amangeldiev, state prosecutor - Prosecutor D. R7, defendants B. M7, E. A7, F. G7, S. T7, M. T7, defenders of the defendants T. SV, zh.B., S. M., G. Sarzhanov, Z. A. translator G. A. in an open court session 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) with the use of audio and video recording means, whether it was filed in court on charges of Part 2 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code). M., E. K. A., F. A. G., S. E. T., M. K. T., transferred to the court by Part 1 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code. the criminal case was considered and determined by the criminal prosecution authorities: B. M. was charged with Part 2 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code, E. A., F. G., S. T., M. T., Part 1 of Article 174 of the criminal code.
During the pre-trial investigation, the defendant B. M., E. A., F. G., S. T., M. T. received a preventive measure "custody".
On June 4, 2025, when a decision was issued on the acceptance of the case for proceedings and the appointment of the main trial, the judge decided to leave unchanged the restraining order selected during the pre-trial investigation of the defendants m, EA, F. G, S. T, M. T.
Lawyers of the defendants B. M., E. A., F. G., S. T., M. T. Saparov, zh.Bekbolatov, S. Moldabekov, G. Sarzhanov, Z. Asadov at the court session submitted an oral statement and then submitted it in writing with a request to change the restraining order in the form of "detention under guard" to "house arrest".
At the main trial, the defendants B. M., E. A, F. G., S. T., M. T. and their lawyers T. Saparov, zh.Bekbolatov, S. Moldabekov, G. Sarzhanov, Z. Asadov fully supported the petition and asked to satisfy the petition for the application of a restraining order in the form of "house arrest".
The court hears the opinion of the parties, examines the petitions submitted to the court and finds that the petition of lawyers is subject to dismissal.
Regardless of the requirements of articles 204, 299 of the Criminal Code, the resolution on the qualification of the suspect's actions, the indictment does not record information about the event, time, place, method, motivation, consequences, differentiation and other circumstances of the criminal offense committed; the accusation specified in the indictment did not correspond to the accusation specified in the resolution on the qualification of the suspect's actions; in cases where the indictment does not specify the qualification of a criminal offense against each suspect when accusing a person who has committed several criminal offenses, provided for in various articles, parts or paragraphs of the criminal law, each criminal offense is not individually qualified, or when accusing several people for committing one criminal offense, the case is subject to return to the prosecutor from a preliminary hearing.
B..M, E. A, F. G, S. T, M. T. N. Suleymenov in the case initiated by Article 174 of the criminal code since February 2025, they have a place of residence, they do not run away anywhere, so they applied to the Republican state institution "institution No. 69" of the committee of the Penal correction system of the Ministry of internal affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the Saule microdistrict he was asked to transfer to the House for an MRI Diagnosis.
In accordance with Article 23 of the law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 30, 1999 No. 353 "on the procedure and conditions of detention of persons in special institutions, special premises providing temporary isolation from society", if there is a medical report in the event of a serious illness of a suspect or accused, which can lead to death, the administration of the pre-trial detention center has the right to raise the question of changing the preventive measure before the prosecutor and the body leading the case.
However, the administration of the pre-trial detention center did not ask the court to change the measure of restraint depending on the patient of the defendant.
In addition, in accordance with Part 1 of Article 153 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Procedure Code), if there is no need for a preventive measure, it is canceled or it is changed to a lighter or more severe measure when changing the grounds and circumstances provided for in articles 136 and 138 of this code.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 138 of the CPC, when deciding on the need to apply a restraining order and exactly which of them: the severity of the crime committed; the identity of the suspect, the accused, his age; State of health; marital status, the presence of dependents in the family; stability of the social connection of the suspect, the accused; reputation of the suspect, the accused; the case engaged in; the presence of a permanent place of work or training of the suspect, the accused; property status; the presence of a permanent place of residence and other circumstances-the conditions must be taken into account. In the absence of the grounds listed in Article 136 of this code, the severity of the crime committed may not be the only basis for choosing a preventive measure in the form of custody.
Cancellation of a preventive measure or its change is made by a motivated decision of the body conducting the criminal process.
In addition, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 342 of the CPC, during the main trial, the court has the right to choose, change, cancel or extend the preventive measure against the defendant.
The court, having heard the opinion of the parties involved in the case, comes to the conclusion that there is no need to change the preventive measure against him, considering that the defendants M, E. A., F. G., S. T., M. T. N. Suleimenov deliberately committed the crime of "inciting religious discord".
Therefore, the appeal of lawyers of the defendants M., E. A., F. G., S. T., M. T. Saparov, zh.Bekbolatov, S. Moldabekov, G. Sarzhanov, Z. Asadov is subject to dismissal.
Guided by Article 344 of the CPC, the court decided:
The preventive measure "detention under guard" applied to the court on charges of Part 2 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code, Part 1 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, part the application for the application of a preventive measure should be dismissed.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
